The Great Astrology Brouhaha: The Internet Becomes a Weapon of Change
As I write this I’ve just finished making a big fuss via e-mail over the fact that American Airlines runs a horoscope in its very slick monthly in-flight magazine, American Way. While travelling aboard an American flight in November, I noted this fact, along with a letter-to-the-editor in the same issue stating that such an inane item detracted from the quality of the publication. At the same time, the editor of American Way announced that he would henceforth be reachable via a CompuServe e-mail address. This is a procedure increasingly being adopted by TV news shows and other periodicals.
A splendid opportunity for testing the range and efficacy of this modern bit of technology was immediately obvious to me. Even Skeptic Publisher Michael Shermer, who has been known to write with a goose-quill, recently adopted the e-mail facility and has recognized the versatility it provides. My test was more than just an experiment, however; it was also intended to produce a positive change. You may judge whether that result was obtained.
I typed up a letter of protest and fired it off to the magazine, simultaneously posting (sending via e-mail) a suggestion to a 60-person database to whom I regularly send news items, that they might wish to also complain to the publication. Many of those persons on my “Star List” re-posted my communiques to other groups, and the information thereby got to at least several hundred persons, in some cases, to thousands, worldwide. The results were quite interesting.
American Way was inundated with complaints about the astrology inclusion. One e-mailer, a chap who also delights in late-night hang-up telephone calls and other such adorable pranks, sent the editor a “heads-up” notice (a term denoting a warning about something happening on the system) informing him about my campaign a bit late since he was already very much aware of it. I had directly written to him about it.
The assistant editor, in an e-mail letter, assured that correspondent that American Way “had heard about this … But we’re definitely keeping [the Horoscope column], and we’re not paying attention to the e-mail that is pouring in right now.”
When I questioned the assistant editor via e-mail about whether that was an official policy of his magazine, the statement was changed to: “We appreciate any and all comments about the magazine, but … we were aware of the e-mail campaign and read the messages in that light.”
A later communication from the editor-in-chief stated that “I take all feedback from readers seriously …”
One of my correspondents wrote me: “Lighten up! Of course mail volume counts it’s a good indicator of economic potential, and the buck is the bottom line.”
In defense of my zeal, I will say that this reader effectively made one of my points for me. Questions: Is it proper for a medical advisor (a doctor) to prescribe, so long as it does no physical damage, an expensive operation or medication that the patient does not require? Can a grocer ethically adulterate a product, without altering it nutritionally, just so that it appears more attractive? Can a TV personality honestly claim divine powers while secretly using database information to impress and influence paying clients? (I remind you that in these examples, the vendor is offering a product, information or advice in return for money.) If the statement that “the buck is the bottom line” is true, then the answer to all these questions is obviously “Yes!”
Well, I feel strongly that there is a very different bottom line available to the vendors, and that includes editors who piously declare that they didn’t really mean it, that they were just having fun with their clients. As did the editors of the American Way.
My critical reader goes on to say, “Some people are going to believe horoscopes and other superstitious nonsense, no matter what you say.”
Agreed, of course. The question is, can the reader of a respectable, slick, prestigious publication be led to believe that an archaic, thoroughly disproved notion is actually a legitimate one because well-educated, well-informed publishers offer it to them as such? I think so. The reader concludes, “You can’t blame American Way magazine, any more than you can your local newspaper, for pandering to [the belief in horoscopes], can you?”
No more, agreed. I blame both. I believe that pandering should not be part of the journalistic profession.
A response from the American Way editor revealed that the Horoscope “generates hundreds of letters a year” from readers, “four to one positive” about the column, which he writes “consistently rates among our most-read features.” Now, such a reader response is certainly not generated by a column that “is intended as entertainment, nothing more, nothing less,” as the editor claims (but fails to state in the magazine). The American Way Horoscope is not written at all in a humorous manner (which might make it entertaining), but is clearly meant to be taken seriously. And we now know that it is viewed that way by 80% of respondents, quite possibly because American Airlines sees fit to include it prominently in their only publication available to passengers a publication that presumably reflects the degree of esteem that the airlines administration has for its paying clients.
Even Shermer took to the e-waves by threatening the editor of American Way to publish the brouhaha in Skeptic, with a followup suggestion that readers vote their disapproval by taking other airlines. He inquired, “I wonder how many flyers would purposefully avoid American Airlines simply because you do NOT have an astrology column. My guess: 0. If even one flyer changes airlines because you do, it seems like a simple business decision to me. Drop the column.”
It’s not as if there is any doubt about the status of astrology. By the year 1700, most scholars had pretty well decided against its validity.
Correspondent Bill Steele, a science writer for Cornell University News Service, commented on my protest, “I’m sure these editors would not continue, say, a column on how to make bombs, no matter how large and enthusiastic its readership. The problem here is a failure to realize how the propagation and legitimization of pseudo-science damages our society.” That’s very well put, Bill.
It’s not as if there is any doubt about the status of astrology. By the year 1700, most scholars had pretty well decided against its validity, though the uninformed public continued to embrace the idea, as they do today. The very first (1771) edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica defined astrology as: “a conjectural science, which teaches to judge of the effects and influences of the stars, and to foretel [sic] future events by the situation and different aspects of the heavenly bodies. This science has long ago become a just subject of contempt and ridicule.”
In 1898, the Nouveau Larousse Illustre (the national encyclopedia of France) told its readers that: “[Astrology] now has hardly any adherents other than swindlers who play on public credulity, and even those are fast disappearing.” The contributor was himself more than a little prophetic when he added this precaution: “From time to time a renewed interest in mysticism or dilettantism may bring about a revival of astrology, of all kinds of magic, and of spiritualism.” (Author translation.)
We have a difficult enough time discovering the facts of our universe (the method is called “science”) without crippling our young people—and that’s my “bottom line”—with lies made for fun and profit. The reader continues: “Please don’t get me wrong; I agree that astrology is irrational and pseudoscientific, but the boycott (and the use of the word “danger”) seems a bit harsh to me.”
Forgive me, but my comments are based upon long experience, much exposure to injured intellects, and battle scars from encounters with authorities who appear to have ignored the responsibilities that are, or should be, part of their professional lives. Yes, I’m indignant.
Does the thoroughly discredited, medieval notion called astrology represent the attitude and the level of thinking at American Airlines? Are zodiac birth signs used to evaluate applicants for employment at AA? (Not a far-fetched notion. This was done, and may still be in effect, at El-Al airlines, who did not hire Scorpios because of their “secretive” natures.) Are flight crew assignments decided by the configurations of the stars and planets? Are policy decisions and safety margins influenced by the official AA astrologer? If the answer to these questions is “no,” then AA is saying that astrology is not good enough for the smart airline administration, but good enough for those silly folks who book passage on their flights.
In case you were wondering, I spent some time on the telephone inquiring of Northwest, TWA, United, USAir and Continental about whether they run an astrology or Tooth Fairy column. The editorial secretary at USAir said, “No, I’m sorry, sir, we don’t.” I quickly assured her that she need not apologize. By contrast, Continental answered, “Certainly not!” and seemed almost incredulous at the idea of their promoting astrology.
Since this e-mail brouhaha began I travelled round-trip to Finland, and round-trip to the UK. I was offered American Airlines on the second trip by my travel agent. I went on both trips by Delta. In their in-flight magazine I found no horoscope.
The bottom line to the saga is this: the American Way magazine decided that as of January 1st, 1995, the column would be re-titled “The Un-Horoscope: Looking for Punch Lines in the Planets.” I am sure glad I did not come up with that name, but it is a minor victory demonstrating that such weapons as e-mail can be used with great success. A partial one admittedly, but it lessens the insult offered to the great majority of American Way readers.